The Chartists in the United Kingdom wanted the vote given to all male adults and wanted a more equitable distribution of income and better living conditions for ordinary people.

Socialism is not the same as communism.

Communism, as organised by Lenin and Stalin, was an extremist (Kosher Nostra) doctrine, not much different from fascism; with the original Soviet and Chinese Communism , a rich elite treated the ordinary people as slaves.

Hitler, like Tony Blair, was used by the ‘right wing’ to smash socialism. Hitler got his thugs to beat up socialists.

Its debt is rising. Its population is ageing. Its schools are mediocre. Its infrastructure is rickety.

Its politicians are corrupt.

It is spending too much money on wars.

There is a giant gap in wealth between the elite and the average citizen…A well nourished man steals maize from a starving child during a food distribution at a feeding center in Sudan in 1998. Photo by Tom Stoddart.

But, so long as the US government can go on printing money, the game can go on for ever.

Of course, if the USA fails to get its house in order, the dollar will go down in value and ordinary people become much poorer.

We should all look at Switzerland, which is made up of a number of counties (cantons).

The central government in Switzerland controls the railways.

The cantons control education, labour, economic and welfare policies and so on.

Each canton has its own parliament and constitution.

The communes vary in size from a few hundred to more than a million people.

Douglas wrote: “Going back a generation or two… it was still possible for a middle-class father to support a family of four, but it now takes two earners to maintain most families, and that at a lower standard of living…”

“Over the past several decades an increasingly growing percentage of agricultural land has been gobbled up by big corporations and by corrupt governments.

“Hundreds of millions of people have been pushed off their land.”

Global corporations dominate much of the world economy.

1 According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the number of “least developed countries” has doubled over the past 40 years.

2 “Least developed countries” spent 9 billion dollars on food imports in 2002. By 2008, that number had risen to 23 billion dollars.

3. Average income per person in the poorest countries on the continent of Africa has fallen by one-fourth over the past twenty years.

4. Bill Gates has a net worth of somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 billion dollars. That means that there are approximately 140 different nations that have a yearly GDP which is smaller than the amount of money Bill Gates has.

5. A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research discovered that the bottom half of the world population owns approximately 1 percent of all global wealth.

India

6. Approximately 1 billion people throughout the world go to bed hungry each night.

7. The wealthiest 2 percent own more than half of all global household assets.

8. It is estimated that over 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where the income gap between the rich and the poor is widening.

9. Every 3.6 seconds someone starves to death and three-quarters of them are children under the age of 5.

10. According to Gallup, 33 percent of the people on the globe say that they do not have enough money for food.

A distraction.

11. As you read this, there are 2.6 billion people around the world that lack basic sanitation.

12. According to the most recent “Global Wealth Report” by Credit Suisse, the wealthiest 0.5% control over 35% of the wealth of the world.

13. More than 3 billion people, close to half the world’s population, live on less than 2 dollar a day.

14. CNN founder Ted Turner is the largest private landowner in the United States. Today, Turner owns approximately two million acres. That is an amount greater than the land masses of the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. Turner also advocates restricting U.S. couples to 2 or fewer children to control population growth.

Gordon Brown reportedly works for the CIA.

15. There are 400 million children in the world today that have no access to safe water.

16. Approximately 28 percent of all children in developing countries are considered to be underweight or have had their growth stunted as a result of malnutrition.

17. It is estimated that the United States owns approximately 25 percent of the total wealth of the world.

18. It is estimated that the entire continent of Africa owns approximately 1 percent of the total wealth of the world.

19. In 2008, approximately 9 million children died before they reached their fifth birthdays. Approximately a third of all of these deaths was due either directly or indirectly to lack of food.

20. The most famous banking family in the world, the Rothschilds, has accumulated mountains of wealth while much of the rest of the world has been trapped in poverty. The following is what Wikipedia has to say about Rothschild family wealth….

It has been argued that during the 19th century, the family possessed by far the largest private fortune in the world, and by far the largest fortune in modern history.
Nobody seems to know exactly how much the Rothschilds are worth today. They dominate the banking establishments of England, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and many other nations. It was estimated that they were worth billions back in the mid-1800s. What the total wealth of the family is today is surely an amount that is almost unimaginable, but nobody knows for sure.

“What we have in the world today is not capitalism.

“Rather, it more closely resembles ‘feudalism’ than anything else…

“It would be great if we lived in a world where those living in poverty were encouraged to start owning land, to create businesses and to build better lives for themselves…

“It turns out that the global elite have decided that they don’t really need so many expensive American ‘worker bees’ after all and they have been moving thousands of factories and millions of jobs overseas.

“Meanwhile the American people are so distracted watching Dancing with the Stars, Lady Gaga and their favorite sports teams that they don’t even realize what is going on.”

On Monday January 18, the Blackpool Council approved a plan to introduce fluoridated milk to school children via the town’s free breakfast program. The Council is attempting to tackle a dental health problem that has caused nearly half of all 12-year olds in Blackpool to have at least one decayed, missing, or filled tooth.

Coun Graham Cain, cabinet secretary for Blackpool Council, said: “Unfortunately the state of Blackpool’s dental health is very poor.

However, where some parts of the country can benefit from fluoride naturally appearing in their daily drinking water, in Blackpool we cannot.

What we do have is a method through the free breakfast programme that allows us to reach all primary school children as they are growing up and make the fluoride milk available to them there.

The proposal will allow for children to opt out and requires the schools to provide non-fluoridated milk. First proposed in 2013 the plan was delayed while studies were conducted. The studies found that children in the town have “lower than normal” levels of fluoride.

a proposal to introduce fluoridated milk, which contains fluoride to help reduce the risk of tooth decay, was approved by the Council’s Executive on Monday 18 January. The milk, which is recommended by the World Health Organisation, is the latest in Blackpool Council’s plans to tackle poor dental hygiene amongst children in the town.

Around 400 children in Blackpool are also admitted to hospital every year to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic, at a cost to the NHS of thousands of pounds.

The Council also states that the fluoridated milk plan will come at no extra cost to the taxpayer thanks to the free breakfast program. They estimate that 8,400 students currently receive milk on a daily basis and many of them will now be drinking fluoridated milk. The plan would add .8 mg Fluoride per 189 ml of milk, or 4.2 parts per million. In April 2015 the U.S. government lowered the recommended levels of fluoride to 0.7 parts per million.

Interestingly, under a section titled “Ethical Considerations” the Blackpool council writes “none.” The reason I find that interesting is because a simple search of studies on fluoridation will show that there are many health issues associated with the practice and thus dosing children with the chemical through their milk does raise some ethical questions.

The Blackpool Council also writes that the benefits of fluoridated milk have been proven by the European Union and the World Health Organisation. “This is why fluoride is widely used in many ways for example water or toothpaste and mouth washes. A well mineralised tooth is what everyone is trying to achieve to prevent decay,” the Council writes.

However, critics have long argued that any benefits of fluoride are only effective when applied topically, directly to the teeth. This would make water and milk fluoridation largely a waste of resources. Moreover, exposing the internal organs to fluoride might actually be harmful to health. The possibility of harmful side effects from water fluoridation is still heavily debated.

The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom.

The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded). “From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says.

Trevor Sheldon, dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom, conducted a review of water fluoridation in 2000. Sheldon concluded that the process is not effective. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he told Newsweek. “My prior view was completely reversed.”

Sheldon points out that some studies have actually shown that when water fluoridation was ceased, cavities went down a small percentage among schoolchildren. This includes a 2001 study of two British Columbia communities that was included in the Cochrane review.

The Cochrane team also found that most studies confirming the effectiveness of fluoridation were completed prior to the widespread use of dental products such as mouth rinses and toothpastes. The study did find evidence that fluoridation was linked to a 26 percent decrease in cavities. However, this study was also done before the growth of modern dentistry. The researchers write, “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.”

In early June, the Health Research Board (HRB) completed an in-depth review of the effects of water fluoridation. The review was conducted at the behest of the U.S. Department of Health. After examining all internationally peer-reviewed papers on the topic of fluoride and health effects from 2006 to 2014, the HRB “found no definitive evidence that community water fluoridation is associated with positive or negative systemic health effects.”

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist, community activist, gardener and promoter from Houston, Texas. He is the co-founder of The Houston Free Thinkers, and co-host of Free Thinker Radio. Broze also hosts and produces a weekly podcast under the name the Conscious Resistance Live. His writing can be found on TheConsciousResistance.com, The Liberty Beat, Activist Post, and other independent media sources.

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) intelligence said Ukrainian forces and heavy weapons are deployed near the contact line – indicating a “readiness of the Ukrainian power agencies to aggravate the situation in Donbass,” DINA reported.

Kiev continues violating Minsk ceasefire terms – with full support and encouragement from Washington.

According to DPR intelligence, “(i)n eight localities of the ‘buffer zone’ seized by the AFU there were registered cleansings of the local population, defiant” of Minsk.

The cleansings are carried out by the representatives of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) with reinforcement by units of the 36th separate naval infantry brigade, by reason of the huge information leak in these areas.

In particular, about concentration of the AFU’s forbidden arms and personnel in the so-called ‘grey’ zone, and preparation by the Ukrainian power structures of provocations against civilians.

Basurin said ISIS and other terrorist elements from Syria and Iraq now operate in Donbass. In mid-January, DPR’s Defense Ministry revealed foreign mercenaries in the self-declared republic.

They conduct “recurrent attacks on our positions,” it explained. Is Ukraine a new platform for ISIS expansion? Is Washington deploying their elements there?

Addressing the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, John Kerry turned truth on its head, claiming a safer Middle East and world today.

Conditions are graver than ever. Endless US wars of aggression rage. Kiev refused to implement Minsk I and II ceasefire terms.

Kerry telling WEF participants “it is possible in these next months to find those Minsk agreements implemented and to get to a place where sanctions (on Russia) can be appropriately…removed” runs counter to US policy since Obama replaced democrats with fascists in Ukraine, and Russia was falsely accused of invading its territory.

Due to increased mandatory vaccination legislation, parents are being politely threatened by the corporate-sponsored press, the CDC and the school systems that they had better get jabs for their children. In many cases, such as in California, it’s the law. In cases where it’s not completely mandatory, veiled threats and social pressure to submit have reached an ominous fever-pitch.

While the media can offer ostensible friendliness in passive aggressive threats to “get with the vaccine program” as it can rest on the buttress of law, it has not yet dispensed with extraordinary hysteria, authoritarian peer pressure and even targeting children in public shaming rituals.

This is because it’s “Back to School” rush hour, one of the biggest spending seasons. In the rush to spend one’s literal last pennies on supplies, clothes and lunches, the government doesn’t want you to forget to sacrifice and scrape that last bit for required injections.

One headline goes like this: Parents told to check vaccine status ahead of school. It was a “friendly reminder” to Oregon parents that their non-medical exemptions are null, that booster shots are required for older students and that preschool caretakers are to get jabs or close down.

When kids start school this fall, it’s a sure bet that some won’t have had their recommended vaccines because their parents have claimed exemptions from school requirements for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. Following the much publicized outbreak of measles that started in Disneyland in California in December, these exemptions have drawn increased scrutiny. [emphasis added]

That’s right, all of these convenient moves to corral people into compulsory toxic injections hinge on the original hysteria produced by “Disneyland measles.” What the media never reports is that California had a 97.46% student vaccination rate during that time. Pharma manufacturers cry that they need 95% rate to achieve so-called “herd immunity.” And did you know that Idaho has the highest proportion of kindergartners with exemptions, at only 6.5 percent?

The hysteria also serves as a convenient deflection from other inconvenient truths such as the fact that so many more people have died from the MMR vaccine (and the previous single-vial measles vaccine) than the measles disease in over a decade. Have the pharmaceutical manufacturers ever been held accountable – no, we account for it in tax dollars under a $3 billion dollar bail-out, so far.

Back to Disneyland measles which followed Ebola-gate. I see that it has further victimized children. While these laws pass due to cries of “the children! the children!” – the Senators spearheading the crusade obviously do not show concern for children when they receive funds from Big Pharma. Big Pharma sits on bail-outs, industry-paid “scientists,” control of media (including social media) and mandatory legislation. Emotional trolling has led some parents to succumb to disgraceful social interactions like asking a parent if her kid has “had her shots” before they are allowed to come over and play.

One report provides “tools” for parents to help them “remember” to get all the pharma recommended shots:

Secretary Galvin has a new tool on his website that shows parents the recommended vaccines for their children by age – from birth to eighteen years old.

At first the report conveyed friendly help to new parents, but then…:

As students prepare to head back into the classroom, some parents believe they shouldn’t be required by law to vaccinate their kids. [emphasis added]

Additionally, the pressure is high to “hunt” unvaccinated children in public shaming statistics that compel parents to do the dirty work of peer-pressure. For instance, if states post local vaccination rates at the recent behest of the CDC, and if parents act accordingly by the statistics, it will increase pressure to vaccinate on area doctors and school systems desperate for attendance funds.

How many kids are vaccinated at your child’s school? Federal health officials think you should be able to easily find out.

CDC’s Dr. Anne Schuchat made the push more public during a press conference Thursday.

“It’s important to recognize when vulnerabilities exist in communities,” said Schuchat, who oversees the agency’s vaccination work.

Parents could use the information to weigh their child’s risk of vaccine-preventable illnesses at specific schools or school districts, Schuchat said. And it could help health officials identify pockets of unvaccinated children, she said.

Can these numbers be trusted? What happens when the rate of vaccination reaches 100% and the only thing left to show for it is more disease and sickness? Who or what will be blamed then? Again, there is no recourse.

One would think stigmas, discrimination, scarlet letters and other forms of public shaming would be counter-intuitive in preventing disease and helping children grow into healthy, confident adults. To see the results of previous experiments, just glance back at history. It’s never been about “the children.” They say that truth is the first casualty of all types of wars – are children the second? If deception is the first weapon of forceful agendas, are shame and hysteria the second? They are the most negative, yet effective forms of marketing ever concocted.

Although U.S. drones firing missiles at suspected bad guys in faraway places – such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia – have gotten much publicity in recent years, it was recently revealed that the CIA assassinated top Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mugniyah with a good old fashioned car bomb in Damascus, Syria with President George W. Bush’s strident approval in 2008. Because of an executive order, signed in 1975 by President Gerald Ford, prohibiting assassinations by the CIA, presidents usually get around that order by using the military to kill an enemy bigwig and then make the disingenuous claim that it was merely taking out a “command and control” target rather than an assassination. In this case, Bush, never one to observe constitutional or legal niceties, became incensed that the CIA director was being too timid in carrying out the hit using the exploding car. The real issue in such cases is not whether it is more dangerous to liberty to kill the enemy using a high tech drone or a more traditional car bomb, but whether it constitutional to do either.

Even Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, the author of numerous books and a legal expert for Fox News, in an otherwise excellent history of the usurpation of unique American civil liberties at the expense of ever expanding executive power (see Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty) focuses too much on President Barack Obama’s killing of American citizens without due process – for example, Anwar al Alawki in Yemen in 2011. Napolitano correctly argues that an American president is essentially claiming the right to murder his own citizens without prior legal niceties, but he focuses too much on the use of exotic drone technology to do so and not enough on a larger and more important problem. If anyone – U.S. citizen or not – is attempting to attack the United States, the president should have a right to take them out, provided the Congress has authorized military action or declared war. Even then, according to the founders’ original constitutional vision, if the country is under imminent threat of attack, the president can take appropriate action and get congressional authorization at the earliest possible time. If the president doesn’t have such legislative approval or a legitimate “imminent attack” rationale, he is essentially murdering people – U.S. citizens or not.

However, Obama did not start the congressionally unauthorized drone wars in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia – which because of this lack of legitimate authority are essentially murdering people without due process – George W. Bush did. But Obama has accelerated the illegitimate killing. Neither president can be given an exemption for imminent attacks; the Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and al Shabab in Somalia have been around a long time, so both presidents have had plenty of time to get congressional approval for the drone wars.

Of course, both presidents would claim that the post-9/11 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave them approval to go anywhere in search of al Qaeda-related groups. However, upon reading the AUMF, that is not the case. The AUMF merely authorized the president to go after those who perpetrated or supported the 9/11 attacks or who harbored the attackers; thus, the authorization would be limited to the central al Qaeda group and the Afghan Taliban that had harbored them. Groups only loosely affiliated with al Qaeda, and that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks – such as those mentioned in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia – are clearly outside the purview of the AUMF. In other words, when Obama killed an American citizen in the main al Qaeda group, such as Osama bin Laden, it was not murder, because a legitimate war exists with that group. In contrast, Obama’s killing of at least four Americans in the other theaters was murder – but so is killing people of other nationalities, because he doesn’t have the authority to do that either without due process (unless he can get Congress to approve military action in those places).

The only other drawback to Napolitano’s thoroughly excellent coverage of expansion of presidential power, and it’s related to this topic, is that he underplays the expansion of the president’s war power at Congress’s expense. Since 1950, during the Korean War, for the first time in American history, President Harry Truman declined to ask Congress to declare war to authorize a major military action. This unconstitutional usurpation of power by the executive is every bit as serious as Napolitano’s meticulous documentation of presidential excesses in trampling of civil liberties at home during wartime.

The nation’s founders placed the war power clearly in the hands of the people’s branch of government, the Congress, to avoid the cancer that was running rampant then in Europe – executives (mainly kings) fighting wars of aggrandizement at high cost, in blood and treasure, to the common citizen. Thus, if the president wants to kill enemies abroad, any killing – whether it’s done with drones, bombs, or bullets or whether it kills Americans or foreigners – should be regarded as illegal and unconstitutional unless it has been approved by the legislative branch. Yet even this legitimately legal option might be used too much. Let’s treat suspected terrorists as criminals, not warriors, and first attempt to use law enforcement cooperation among nations to capture and try them, using acceptable standards of due legal process. Using the criminal justice system as a first resort, and congressionally approved military action only as a last resort, would also avoid retaliatory blowback terrorism in response to the now profligate and illegal U.S. armed intervention in far flung places.

For a number of years, the topic of FEMA Camps (i.e. American concentration camps) have been rumored to exist. Jesse Ventura, on his show, Conspiracy Theory, revealed to the public the existence of FEMA Camps in such a dramatic fashion that the episode has been banned from public viewing.

Through the years, there has been much speculation about the existence of FEMA Camps and their true purpose. Recent events surrounding the recent Ebola crisis, is making it clear that the camps, as well as other co-opted public facilities (e.g. stadiums, malls, etc.) will be used to enforce medical martial law for both the sick as well as anyone else who the government determines is a (health) risk to the well-being of the public. Am I saying that the camps will be used to house political dissidents. This is undeniably true. This article traces the inception of FEMA camps to the present and intended purpose. This article will also expose the fact that it will not just be Ebola victims going to these camps where there will be medical facilities.

Remember the promise of universal health care with Obamacare, with no refusal for ‘pre-existing conditions’? It looks like your insurance company may not have to cover you if you get Ebola. U.S. and British insurance companies have begun writing Ebola exclusions into standard policies to cover hospitals, event organizers, and other businesses vulnerable to local disruptions.

While it is estimated that expenditures to treat the original Dallas Ebola patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, were approximately $100,000 an hour (though he passed anyway), it looks like insurance companies won’t be footing the bill.

President Obama originally refused to set up travel restrictions in and out of West Africa, too, even though the governments latest scare tactics and the CDC’s ineptitude have resulted in insurance companies creating new policies which exclude Ebola care. Renewals will also become costlier for companies opting to insure business travel to West Africa or to cover the risk of losses from quarantine shutdowns at home.

One of the most dangerous philosophical contentions even amongst liberty movement activists is the conundrum of government force and prevention during times of imminent pandemic. All of us at one time or another have had this debate. If a legitimate viral threat existed and threatened to infect and kill millions of Americans, is it then acceptable for the government to step in, remove civil liberties, enforce quarantines, and stop people from spreading the disease? After all, during a viral event, the decisions of each individual can truly have a positive or negative effect on the rest of society, right? One out of control (or “lone wolf”) citizen/terrorist could reignite a biological firestorm, so, should we not turn to government and forgo certain freedoms in order to achieve the greater good for the greater number?

If the government in question was a proven and honorable institution, then I would say pro-Medical Martial Law arguments might have a leg to stand on. However, this is not the case. In my view, medical martial law is absolutely unacceptable under ANY circumstances, including Ebola, in light of the fact that our current government will be the predominant cause of viral outbreak. That is to say, you DO NOT turn to the government for help when the government is the cause of the problem.

Since his appointment as America’s Ebola Czar it has been revealed that not only does Ron Klain have no medical experience to speak of, but that his position as the head of coordinating efforts to stop Ebola is just a stepping stone to something bigger and better. The administration says that they need someone with management experience to ensure containment operations are executed effectively. That would be all fine and dandy except for a shocking interview that has made its way onto the internet in which Klain is asked about the top issue facing the world.

It turns out that the new Ebola Czar, whose responsibility is to quash the spread of Ebola and save lives, is seemingly an advocate of population and resource control.

I think the top issue facing the world today is how to deal with the continuing growing population in the world and all of the resource demands it places on the world.

And burgeoning populations in Africa and Asia that lack the resources to have a health, happy life. I think we’ve got to find a way to make the world work for everyone.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.